I thought it was going to be a news item about how twitter and blogs are ruining science discourse but I’m glad to say I was wrong. The Dec. 28, 2011 news item about an article in the journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science by psychologists Marco Bertamini of the University of Liverpool and Marcus Munafò of the University of Bristol on MedicalXpress focuses on the trend towards shorter science papers,

“We’re not against concision,” says Bertamini. “But there are real risks in this trend toward shorter papers. The main risk is the increased rates of false alarms that are likely to be associated with papers based on less data.”

The article dispatches several claimed advantages of shorter papers. Proponents say they’re easier to read. Perhaps, say the authors, but more articles mean more to keep up with, more reviewing and editing—not less work. Proponents laud the increased influence authors gain from more citations. Precisely, say the two—but two short papers do not equal twice the scientific value of a longer one. Indeed, they might add up to less.

The reason: The smaller the experimental sample the greater the statistical deviations—that is, the greater the inaccuracy of the findings. … Strict word limits, moreover, mean cutting the details about previous research. The new results sound not only surprising but also novel. Write the authors: “A bit of ignorance helps in discovering ‘new’ things.”

I am particularly struck by that bit about cutting details of previous research. This means that reporters/journalists are more likely to be ‘under’ informed and, by extension, the general public (after reading the journalist’s account) not to mention the readers for whom the original research was intended.